According To The Apostolic Council Of Jerusalem Islam Is Not Heresy
Not-easily-duped
to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
According to that council
The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
That is exactly what Islam did.
Islam is no heresy but only your understanding has been misguided by
the popes
Charles Hogg
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
JGV-ibnalfadl
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
Gregory Gadow
> Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
authority of the Apostles. That is the basis for the Council of Nicaea
and the various Councils that followed. The Orthodox churches, sensitive
to the apostasy of the Roman Catholics and others, recognize only seven
councils as having such apostolic authority (1 Nicaea, 325; 1
Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; 2 Constantinople 552;
3 Constantinople, 680 and continued at the Trullan Synod in 692; 2
Nicaea, 787.) The Roman Catholic Church, considering themselves to be the
whole of Christendom, recognize 21 with the latest being 2 Vatican in
1962.
> According to that council
> The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
No. The Apostles made judgements for the *Christian* community, not the
Jewish. Jewish converts were expected to remain fully observent of the
whole of the Law of Moses, including the circumcision of their children
and the observance of Jewish dietary laws and religious customs. A much
less strict set of requirements were placed on certain communities of
non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Strictly speaking, it was Paul, in
direct violation of the Council of Apostles, who tossed most of even
those requirements and extended them to ALL Christians, not merely
non-Jewish converts.
> That is exactly what Islam did.
Did Islam ever require conversion to Christianity? If not, then your
argument does not apply.
> Islam is no heresy but only your understanding has been misguided by
> the popes
The whole Church, in Council and (theoretically) guided by the Holy
Spirit in the tradition of the Apostles, decreed at both 1 Nicaea and 1
Constantinople that a belief in the Trinity -- specifically, a *correct*
belief in the Trinity -- was fundamental to orthodoxy. Any religion that
denied the Trinity was therefore "in error." Part of that correct belief
in the Trinity is the doctrine that Jesus is "the only Son of God,
eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True
God from True God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father....
He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his
kingdom will have no end." Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
--
Gregory Gadow
tech...@serv.net
http://www.serv.net/~techbear
"If you make yourself a sheep, the wolves will eat you."
-- Benjamin Franklin
digimortal
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> Islam denies this doctrine and so, under Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
That is correct. And likewise the non-Roman Catholic Churches are
considered by contemporary Roman Catholics to be heretical too, in that
some of them reject the apostolic succession of bishops and others the
real presence of Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine in the
commnunion. In modern "politically correct language" the Roman Catholics
often refer publicly to those groups as "our separated brethren".
However, there is more than political correctness involved; there is
also the very real theological distinction between "apostasy" and
"heresy". Technically speaking, "apostasy" is the total and absolute
rejection of faith. "Heresy" is to continue to believe but to distort,
deny or misrepresent CERTAIN elements of orthodoxy.
With the passage of time, in the RC Church the distinction between
apostates and heretics was often blurred. Nevertheless, apostasy was
considered to be far more serious than heresy, was at some times and
places unforgivable even if the apostate recanted and inducement to
apostasy was punishable by death.
Put very simply, a Christian who becomes a Lutheran is a heretic. A
Christian who becomes an atheist is an apostate.
Today, the recognition that apostasy results in total exclusion from the
community and heresy results only in partial exclusion is still
important. It is the basis for the RC Church's declaration about Islam
in the revised Cathechism that was published a few years ago (the first
universal catechism since the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563 and
had been convoked mainly to address the heresies of the Protestants.
Today, the Catechism has this to say about Islam:
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation
also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place
amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of
Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind's judge on the last day."
Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
That teaching was proclaimed during the Vatican II Council in the 1960s
after the bishops present accepted it by a vote of 2,151 for and only 5
against. That's as strong as the votes in early times that proclaimed
the doctrines of Christ's divinity and the Trinity.
That same Council also declared the following:
"The Church regards with respect the Muslims, who worship the One,
Living, Subsistent, Merciful, Almighty God who created the heavens and
the earth, who spoke to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly to
God's commandments...even as Abraham submitted himself to God, whose
obedience is often recalled in the Islamic religion. Although they do
not recognize Jesus as God, they do venerate him as a prophet and they
honour his virgin mother, Mary.... They await the Day of Judgment, when
God will reward all those risen from the dead. They hold in high regard
the moral life and worship God,particularly by prayer, charity and
fasting."
With the division of the Christian Church after the 4th Ecumenical
Council (according to the Anglicans) or the 7th (according to others),
there is no longer a single voice speaking for all Christian.
Nevertheless, the declaration of the RC Church on Muslims is generally
shared by most of today's Christian communities. Similar statements have
been made by the United Methodists, Anglicans (Episcopalians),
Presbyterians (PCUSA), Evangelical Lutherans, as well as by some Greek,
Russian and Syriac Orthodox bishops.
There are only a very small number of Christians, mainly those
associated with the extreme right, fundamentalist, so-called
conservative evangelical movement, that consider Muslims to be
unbelievers and worshippers of a false god.
Sadly for the peace and progress of the world, that fringe group now
occupies positions of great power in the U.S. government. Some of its
members, including some in government, think that the U.S. is God's
chosen instrument for carrying out His divine will in the world. That
megalomaniacal worldview combined with their way of defining persons and
communities as good-evil, worthy-worthy, saved-damned in this world and
the next, etc., has made them a great danger to all of us.
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Mark K. Bilbo
> The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
What did he wear?
--
Mark K. Bilbo
From alt.atheism only
John Hattan
You really think the folks in alt.atheism take guidance from the popes?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Alun Harford
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
Hmmm... X-posted to:
alt.religion.christian.east-orthodox,alt.politics,alt.religion.christian.rom
an-catholic,alt.religion.islam,alt.atheism
Don't feed the troll
Alun Harford
bam
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
> to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
So "heresy" was only intended to be identified for 30-40 years after Jesus'
resurrection?
BAM
Mark Richardson
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
>Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
>to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
The Great Geen Iguana spoke to me in a dream and he said only Mrs Enid
Biggs of 62 West Wallaby Street has HIS Authority to define heresies
and the opinion of anyone else is now redundant.
So there!
>According to that council
>The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
Someone still has his robes?
>That is exactly what Islam did.
>Islam is no heresy but only your understanding has been misguided by
>the popes
Who gives a rats?
No one in alt.atheism
Troll, troll, troll, your posts....
Mark.
--
Mark Richardson mDOTrichardsonATutasDOTeduDOTau
Member of S.M.A.S.H.
(Sarcastic Middle aged Atheists with a Sense of Humour)
-----------------------------------------------------
Olrik
"Council of the apostles" ?
"Law and costumes of Moses" ?
"Popes" ?
Truly, who cares ?
--
Olrik
aa #1981
Qualified SMASH member
EAC Chief Food Inspector, Bacon Division
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
>Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
For something to be considered a Christian heresy, it must at least
hold itself out to be Christian. Islam makes no claim of being
Christian, and therefore can't be considered "heretical." You might as
well brand the Buddhists and all other religions as heretical
Christians.
Enkidu
Hash: SHA1
"Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
news:fpqbpvooe5ubud6tl...@4ax.com...
> The Great Geen Iguana spoke to me in a dream and he said only Mrs Enid
> Biggs of 62 West Wallaby Street has HIS Authority to define heresies
> and the opinion of anyone else is now redundant.
> So there!
Isn't that Wallace's address? I alway thought he was a skeptic myself.
Enkidu
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
Version: 6.5.8ckt http://www.ipgpp.com/
Comment: KeyID: 0x4F366721
iQA/AwUBP5X494TItnFPNmchEQLqNwCg2YHk3t8GhESdmT7+AdVVPRvKgH8AoMf6
gw3vWxjK/cXVPh1RRRYCv5Bb
=FXae
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
gaffo
As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
> > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
>
> As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
NOT apostasies. Since both Jews and Muslims recognize the Eternal
Unitary Godhead worshipped by Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and
Muhammad, they are not apostates. Since they reject, ignore or
misunderstand some of the dogmas of the Christian Church, in particular
the tri-modal being of the unitary Godhead and the dual nature of Jesus,
they are heresies. This is rather clear in the section of the RC
catechism that defines the Church and the relation of the Jews and
Muslims to it.
The following is from the Catechism as published on the Vatican Web site:
Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
"839 ...The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she
delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New
Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,"the first to hear
the Word of God."The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions,
is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant. To the
Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the
law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and
of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ","for the gifts and
the call of God are irrevocable."
"840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant
and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the
coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the
Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and
Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features
remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is
accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ
Jesus.
"841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation
also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place
amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of
Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
mankind's judge on the last day."
[Note that the plan of salvation does NOT include unrepentant apostates,
who by denying God have committed the "sin against the Holy Spirit", the
only unforgiveable sin, according to the Bible.]
842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place
the common origin and end of the human race:
"All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from
the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also
because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident
goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the
elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
"843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search,
among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he
gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved.
Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these
religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who
enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
[Note: There is no "preparation for the Gospel" among apostates, only a
total rejection of faith. Those who seek the truth but deviate from the
right way while still seeking the final goal are not apostates; they are
heretics. Thus, Jews and Muslims are heretics.
"844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits
and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
"Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their
reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served
the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this
world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
"845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the
Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's
Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity
and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark
which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy
Spirit, navigates safely in this world." According to another image dear
to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone
saves from the flood.
"'Outside the Church there is no salvation'"
"846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the
Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one
Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in
his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the
necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time
the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a
door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse
either to enter it or to remain in it.
"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve
eternal salvation."
[Note: In other words, "righteous" Jews and Muslims, who acknowlege and
seek the God of Abraham, are, with those in the fullness of the Catholic
Church, assured of God's salvation through the universal salvific work
of Jesus.]
--
Peace to all who seek God's face.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
billu
"Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-EAF463....@news.videotron.net...
> In article <vpc0lke...@corp.supernews.com>,
> gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
> > > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
> >
> >
> > As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
>
> Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
> NOT apostasies.
Judiaism is not a heresy since they are pre-christian. Islam is a heresy
technically
speaking. I tend to think of Judiasim as a subset of the fullness of
revelation while
Islam departs from it by basically saying that Ishmael not Issiac was the
inheretor
of the Faith. So technically it's a Jewish heresy rather than a Christian
one though
it was invented in the 7th century AD and mixes in some Christology through
the
prevelant culture of that age in it's region of origin.
Not-easily-duped
> We have to keep the costumes of Moses?
Are you of the party of the circumcision?
Are you a jew or an Ismaelites
Not-easily-duped
> Troll alert!
Or donc those gentiles did not get nothing from the Bible
they parrot around. It is laughable.
No wonder they send mission around the world to invade
other cultures
Not-easily-duped
> Not-easily-duped wrote:
>
> > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
>
> Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
of the apostles?
> authority of the Apostles. That is the basis for the Council of Nicaea
> and the various Councils that followed. The Orthodox churches, sensitive
> to the apostasy of the Roman Catholics and others, recognize only seven
> councils as having such apostolic authority (1 Nicaea, 325; 1
> Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; 2 Constantinople 552;
> 3 Constantinople, 680 and continued at the Trullan Synod in 692; 2
> Nicaea, 787.) The Roman Catholic Church, considering themselves to be the
> whole of Christendom, recognize 21 with the latest being 2 Vatican in
> 1962.
Irrelevant to the issue being discussed
>
> > According to that council
> > The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
>
> No. The Apostles made judgements for the *Christian* community, not the
> Jewish. Jewish converts were expected to remain fully observent of the
Convert to what????????????
> whole of the Law of Moses, including the circumcision of their children
> and the observance of Jewish dietary laws and religious customs. A much
> less strict set of requirements were placed on certain communities of
> non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Strictly speaking, it was Paul, in
> direct violation of the Council of Apostles, who tossed most of even
> those requirements and extended them to ALL Christians, not merely
> non-Jewish converts.
>
> > That is exactly what Islam did.
>
> Did Islam ever require conversion to Christianity? If not, then your
> argument does not apply.
How do you define Christianity? Oh that congregation of the gentiles
who referred to the Messiah as Son of God?
What a load of shit.
Christian is the one who profess Jesus as the promised Christ
and follow his way.
Does Islam confess Jesus as the Messiah?
I believe so
Phylter
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com:
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> news:<3F95AE34...@serv.net>...
>> Not-easily-duped wrote:
>>
>> > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
>> > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
>>
>> Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
>
>
> I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
> of the apostles?
Are you able to translate this into "English"?
--
Phylter
Denizen of Darkness #44 & AFJC Antipodean Attaché
http://www.rudraigh.com/afjc/regulars.html
Change "no-way" to "hotmail" to respond
Gregory Gadow
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:07:48 -0700, Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> >Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
> For something to be considered a Christian heresy, it must at least
> hold itself out to be Christian.
Not according to most Christian theologians. After all, they think that
Christianity -- specifically THEIR flavor of Christianity -- is the only
correct view of the world. All else is doctrinal error, which is the
definition of heresy.
> Islam makes no claim of being
> Christian, and therefore can't be considered "heretical." You might as
> well brand the Buddhists and all other religions as heretical
> Christians.
Many Christian theologians do exactly that, and have been doing exactly
that for centuries.
Gregory Gadow
> As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
Since Christianity is considered by Christian theologians to be the
"fulfilment" of Judaism, Judaism since the very beginning has been viewed as
the result of stubborn refusal to admit and accept "God's Truth." Therefore,
Judaism is heresy.
Please note, I am NOT a Christian theologian, just a disillusioned scholar :-)
I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but I won't lie about historical and
traditional attitudes that were / continue to be less than disrespectful.
Gregory Gadow
> In article <vpc0lke...@corp.supernews.com>,
> gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
> > > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
> >
> >
> > As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
>
> Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
> NOT apostasies. Since both Jews and Muslims recognize the Eternal
> Unitary Godhead worshipped by Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and
> Muhammad, they are not apostates.
Correction: All but a tiny handful of Christian churches are trinitarian. As
such, the vast majority of Christians will claim that Jesus never -- NOT ONCE
-- worshipped a unitary Godhead. He WAS God and has been from the very
beginning; he IS God and WILL ALWAYS BE God. Anyone who says otherwise is
obviously a heretic :-P
> Since they reject, ignore or
> misunderstand some of the dogmas of the Christian Church, in particular
> the tri-modal being of the unitary Godhead and the dual nature of Jesus,
> they are heresies. This is rather clear in the section of the RC
> catechism that defines the Church and the relation of the Jews and
> Muslims to it.
-- snip Catholic dogma --
There is no need to limit yourself to Catholicism. The Orthodox churches and
most Protestant churches also require belief in the Trinity will call
"heretic" anyone who does not accept that doctrine.
Gregory Gadow
> "Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> news:kevans-EAF463....@news.videotron.net...
> > In article <vpc0lke...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
> >
> > > > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > > > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
> >
> > >
> > >
> > > As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
> >
> > Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
> > NOT apostasies.
>
> Judiaism is not a heresy since they are pre-christian.
Christianity claims to be the "fulfilment" of Judaism. Jews since the founding
of the Christian religion have been accused of "rejecting" God's "obvious"
revelation, of turning their back on God's plan as it has existed from the very
beginning. As such, Jews are not merely heretics, they are de facto apostates,
which is far worse. That is one of the principle reasons for almost two
thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F95AE34...@serv.net>...
> > Not-easily-duped wrote:
> >
> > > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> > > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
> >
> > Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
>
> I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
> of the apostles?
I'm not sure how to parse what you are asking. Are you asking by what authority does an
ecumenical council speak for the Apostles?
The explanation given for the first Nicene Council, and which provided the basis for all
the councils to follow, was a simple one that has always been at the heart of Christian
authority: Apostolic Succession.
This doctrine is based on passages in the Gospel of Matthew where Jesus gives Peter
supernatural authority: "And I tell you, you are Peter, and on this rock I will build my
church, and the powers of death shall not prevail against it. I will give you the keys of
the kingdom of heaven, and whatever you bind on earth shall be bound in heaven, and
whatever you loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven. (Matt 16:18,19 RSV)" The doctrine
says that similar authority was passed on by to the other apostles (it was James, brother
of Jesus, who headed the Apostles after Jesus died, mind you, not Peter.)
This authority became the foundation for the consecration of a bishop, which included the
"passing on" of this supernatural authority. Handed down from bishop to bishop from the
Apostles, it granted biships the right to speak on doctrinal matters. Much of the lively --
and often acrimonious -- debate in the first three hundred years of the Church came from
the fact that there were major differences in the traditions and doctrines passed down via
this Succession.
Constantine, seeking a unified Church with a solid, enforceable authority, called together
all the bishops of the Church and told them to settle their differences and give him a
religion. The bishops invoked their authority of Apostolic Succession and declared jointly
that, as a body representing the whole Church, their decisions would be binding on the
whole Church. That doctrine has served as the basis for all successive Councils.
> > authority of the Apostles. That is the basis for the Council of Nicaea
> > and the various Councils that followed. The Orthodox churches, sensitive
> > to the apostasy of the Roman Catholics and others, recognize only seven
> > councils as having such apostolic authority (1 Nicaea, 325; 1
> > Constantinople, 381; Ephesus, 431; Chalcedon, 451; 2 Constantinople 552;
> > 3 Constantinople, 680 and continued at the Trullan Synod in 692; 2
> > Nicaea, 787.) The Roman Catholic Church, considering themselves to be the
> > whole of Christendom, recognize 21 with the latest being 2 Vatican in
> > 1962.
>
> Irrelevant to the issue being discussed
You brought up the issue of the authority of ecumenical councils when you erroniously spoke
of "roman catholic coucils [sic]." I am putting that issue in context.
> > > According to that council
> > > The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
> >
> > No. The Apostles made judgements for the *Christian* community, not the
> > Jewish. Jewish converts were expected to remain fully observent of the
>
> Convert to what????????????
Jewish converts to Christianity. My apologies; I assumed that my meaning was clear in
context.
> > whole of the Law of Moses, including the circumcision of their children
> > and the observance of Jewish dietary laws and religious customs. A much
> > less strict set of requirements were placed on certain communities of
> > non-Jewish converts to Christianity. Strictly speaking, it was Paul, in
> > direct violation of the Council of Apostles, who tossed most of even
> > those requirements and extended them to ALL Christians, not merely
> > non-Jewish converts.
> >
> > > That is exactly what Islam did.
> >
> > Did Islam ever require conversion to Christianity? If not, then your
> > argument does not apply.
>
> How do you define Christianity?
Speaking in broad terms, Christianity is a widely divergent system of beliefs that holds
Jesus Christ as the savior of the world. However, please note that there are groups
recognized as Christian who reject even that basic dogma.
> Oh that congregation of the gentiles
> who referred to the Messiah as Son of God?
The first group of Christians were the Jewish followers of Jesus. They were not gentiles by
any stretch. It would not be until many years after Jesus died that the Apostles allowed
gentile Christians to not first become Jews, and then the exeption was given only to
gentile converts living in distant lands.
> What a load of shit.
> Christian is the one who profess Jesus as the promised Christ
> and follow his way.
> Does Islam confess Jesus as the Messiah?
> I believe so
To my knowledge, you are in grave error. Islam rejects utterly the idea that Jesus is the
savior and the idea that one is saved only by the grace of God through faith in Christ. If
I am mistaken, I would be grateful if someone more learned in Islamic theology would speak
up.
> > > Islam is no heresy but only your understanding has been misguided by
> > > the popes
> >
> > The whole Church, in Council and (theoretically) guided by the Holy
> > Spirit in the tradition of the Apostles, decreed at both 1 Nicaea and 1
> > Constantinople that a belief in the Trinity -- specifically, a *correct*
> > belief in the Trinity -- was fundamental to orthodoxy. Any religion that
> > denied the Trinity was therefore "in error." Part of that correct belief
> > in the Trinity is the doctrine that Jesus is "the only Son of God,
> > eternally begotten of the Father, God from God, Light from Light, True
> > God from True God, begotten, not made, of one being with the Father....
> > He will come again in glory to judge the living and the dead and his
> > kingdom will have no end." Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
--
Gregory Gadow
> -----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE-----
> Hash: SHA1
>
> "Mark Richardson" <mark.ri...@die.spammers.die> wrote in message
> news:fpqbpvooe5ubud6tl...@4ax.com...
>
> > The Great Geen Iguana spoke to me in a dream and he said only Mrs Enid
> > Biggs of 62 West Wallaby Street has HIS Authority to define heresies
> > and the opinion of anyone else is now redundant.
> > So there!
>
> Isn't that Wallace's address? I alway thought he was a skeptic myself.
Who better than a skeptic to decide the difference between heresy and
orthodoxy?
Alexander Arnakis
wrote:
>
>Since Christianity is considered by Christian theologians to be the
>"fulfilment" of Judaism, Judaism since the very beginning has been viewed as
>the result of stubborn refusal to admit and accept "God's Truth." Therefore,
>Judaism is heresy.
>
heresy. Historically, it was always simply been considered another
religion entirely. To be a Christian heretic, first you have to be a
purported Christian.
Probably the most intense persecution of heretics was under the
Spanish Inquisition. Note that while the Christian heretics were
burned at the stake during the Inquisition, the Jews were simply
expelled from Spain. (Those that stayed under false pretenses of being
Christians were burned if they were found out later, but this was on
the grounds of being apostates and heretics, not on the grounds of
being Jews.)
>Please note, I am NOT a Christian theologian, just a disillusioned scholar :-)
>I mean no disrespect to anyone's beliefs, but I won't lie about historical and
>traditional attitudes that were / continue to be less than disrespectful.
Scholar or not, you are mistaken.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> > Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
> > NOT apostasies. Since both Jews and Muslims recognize the Eternal
> > Unitary Godhead worshipped by Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and
> > Muhammad, they are not apostates.
>
> Correction: All but a tiny handful of Christian churches are trinitarian. As
> such, the vast majority of Christians will claim that Jesus never -- NOT ONCE
> -- worshipped a unitary Godhead. He WAS God and has been from the very
> beginning; he IS God and WILL ALWAYS BE God. Anyone who says otherwise is
> obviously a heretic :-P
According to Christian dogma, Jesus was truly man and truly God. It was
the MAN Jesus who was crucified. The early Chruch quickly declared it to
be a heresy to hold that God himself was nailed to the cross (the heresy
of patripassionism, also called monarchianism and Sabellianism).
The ENTIRE Christian Chruch has always held that God is ONE (although
the doctrine of the Trinity holds that the unitary Godhead is made
manifest in three hypostasis or "persons"). Perhaps you need to re-read
the Athanasian Creed.
"We worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Unity, neither founding
the persons ***nor dividing the substance***." (emphasis added)
"For there is one Person of the Father, another of the Son, and another
of the Holy Spirit. But the Godhead of the Father, of the Son and of the
Holy Spirit is ***all one***." (emphasis added)
"Yet they are not three eternals but one eternal. As also they are not
three incomprehensibles, nor three uncreated but one uncreated and one
incomprehensible. ...Yet they are not three almighties but one almighty.
So the Father is God, the Son is God and the Holy Spirit is God. ***Yet
they are not three Gods but one God***." (emphasis added)
To say that Jesus did not worship a unitary Godhead is to deny the very
words of the Gospel.
Jesus said: "Hear, O Israel; The Lord our God is one Lord." (Mark 12:29)
He was quoting the "shema" of the Jews: "Shema O Yisrael Adonai Elohenu
Adonai echad" (Hear O Israel the Lord our God: The Lord is one)
Note that he did not say "your" God but "our" God.
Jesus in his humanity knew God as God the Father and he prayed to the
Father, which in accordance with the Trinitarian teaching of Athanasius
meant that he was praying to the Unitary Godhead.
Jesus himself declared that "the Lord our God is one". To whom then was
he praying in the Garden on the night of his Passion?
"And he went forward a little and fell to the ground and prayed that if
it were possible the hour might pass from him.
"And he said, 'Abba (Father), all things are possible unto thee; take
away this cup from me; nevertheless, not what I will, but what thou
wilt.'" (Mark 14:35-36)
Are you suggesting that Jesus was not praying to God or that he was
praying to himself or that Jesus was a lesser God and the Father a
greater God, or that the will of the Father was superior to the will of
the Son?
Nothing like that is acceptable to any Christian community. As
Athanasius said, "For like as we are compelled by Christian truth to
acknowledge every person by himself to be God and Lord, so are we
forbidden by the Catholic Religion to say, There be three Gods or three
Lords."
Jesus has a dual nature. Athanasius says that he is "God, of the
sustance of the Father...and Man, of the substance of his
mother...perfect God and perfect Man, of a reasonable soul and flesh
subsisting...equal to the Father as touching his Godhead and inferior to
the Father as touching his manhood.
When Jesus prayed, it was in his humanity that he prayed and he prayed
to the Unitary Godhead (of which, according ot the later Trinitarians,
he was, in his divinity, a part).
Inspite of the dual nature of Jesus and the trinitarian manifestation of
God, there is ONE and only ONE Godhead, who is worshipped by Christians.
If that is not so, then how do you explain the first line of the Nicene
Creed:
"We believe in One God...."
Or the ritual closing of many prayers, that are addressed to the Father
but end with the words:
"...through Jesus Christ our Lord, who lives and reigns with you [the
Father] and the Holy Spirit, ONE GOD, world without end. Amen."
The Doctrine of the Trinity is NOT that there are three Gods or even
that there are three separate beings who taken together are God. The
Doctrine of the Trinity is that there is ONE eternal God who is known to
man under the hypostases (personas or "persons") of the Father, the Son
and the Holy Ghost, of whom neither is greater or lesser, before or
after, stronger or weaker but who are one in being (consubstantial
"homoousion").
When Jesus prayed to the Father (as he did on several recorded
occasions), was he praying to a God that was not the same God as the Son
or the Holy Spirit? No, he was praying to the hypostasis of the Unitary
Godhead who is known as the Father. He could have prayed to the
hypostasis who is know as the Holy Spirit, except that in time the
Spirit (the Comforter) had not yet been sent. He could have prayed to
himself in the sense that the Man Jesus could have prayed to the
hypostasis known as Jesus. There are three hypostases but only ONE God.
Christianity while worshiping the three Persons of the Trinity does not
worship three Gods.
Suggesting otherwise would make of Christians polytheists.
Obviously, Jesus as hypostasis of the One God did not pray to either of
the other hypostases since it would be contrary to Christian doctrine to
believe that the hypostases would call on one another, seeing as how
they were in fact of one single unitary substance and God does not need
to worship himself.
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo
> In article <vpc0lke...@corp.supernews.com>,
> gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
>
>>>Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
>>>Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
>
>>
>>As is Judaism?.......they too deny the trinity.
>
>
> Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies and
> NOT apostasies. Since both Jews and Muslims recognize the Eternal
> Unitary Godhead worshipped by Abraham, Moses, David, Solomon, Jesus and
> Muhammad, they are not apostates. Since they reject, ignore or
> misunderstand some of the dogmas of the Christian Church, in particular
> the tri-modal being of the unitary Godhead and the dual nature of Jesus,
> they are heresies. This is rather clear in the section of the RC
> catechism that defines the Church and the relation of the Jews and
> Muslims to it.
>
> The following is from the Catechism as published on the Vatican Web site:
> Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
>
> "839 ...The relationship of the Church with the Jewish People. When she
> delves into her own mystery, the Church, the People of God in the New
> Covenant, discovers her link with the Jewish People,"the first to hear
> the Word of God."The Jewish faith, unlike other non-Christian religions,
> is already a response to God's revelation in the Old Covenant.
ok.
To the
> Jews "belong the sonship, the glory, the covenants, the giving of the
> law, the worship, and the promises; to them belong the patriarchs, and
> of their race, according to the flesh, is the Christ",
ok.
"for the gifts and
> the call of God are irrevocable."
what? The Church now saying God's Chosen are still the Jews - even after
the New Covenent superseeds the Old covenent?...........isn't this
having your cake and eatign it too?
"irrevocable"???????? Amos and Jesus may not agree with that concept.
>
> "840 And when one considers the future, God's People of the Old Covenant
> and the new People of God tend towards similar goals: expectation of the
> coming (or the return) of the Messiah. But one awaits the return of the
> Messiah who died and rose from the dead and is recognized as Lord and
> Son of God; the other awaits the coming of a Messiah, whose features
> remain hidden till the end of time; and the latter waiting is
> accompanied by the drama of not knowing or of misunderstanding Christ
> Jesus.
so the Jews are saved?.............is this like the above cake and
eating it also.
>
> "841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. "The plan of salvation
> also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place
> amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of
> Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
> mankind's judge on the last day."
>
> [Note that the plan of salvation does NOT include unrepentant apostates,
> who by denying God have committed the "sin against the Holy Spirit",
They deny the Godhood of Christ, not the Father - and the Jews also
recognize the Holy Spirit.
the
> only unforgiveable sin, according to the Bible.]
denying the Holy Spirit is "unforgivable" - according to Paul. Jews do
not deny the Holy Spirit, though the Muslims may. (I don't remember
reading about the Holy Spirit inthe Koran). The Old Testament mentions
the Holy Spirit many times though.
Denying Christ is NOT denying the Holy Spirit.
>
> 842 The Church's bond with non-Christian religions is in the first place
> the common origin and end of the human race:
>
> "All nations form but one community. This is so because all stem from
> the one stock which God created to people the entire earth, and also
> because all share a common destiny, namely God. His providence, evident
> goodness, and saving designs extend to all against the day when the
> elect are gathered together in the holy city. . .
>
> "843 The Catholic Church recognizes in other religions that search,
> among shadows and images, for the God who is unknown yet near since he
> gives life and breath and all things and wants all men to be saved.
> Thus, the Church considers all goodness and truth found in these
> religions as "a preparation for the Gospel and given by him who
> enlightens all men that they may at length have life."
ok.
>
> [Note: There is no "preparation for the Gospel" among apostates, only a
> total rejection of faith. Those who seek the truth but deviate from the
> right way while still seeking the final goal are not apostates; they are
> heretics. Thus, Jews and Muslims are heretics.
ok.
> "844 In their religious behavior, however, men also display the limits
> and errors that disfigure the image of God in them:
>
> "Very often, deceived by the Evil One, men have become vain in their
> reasonings, and have exchanged the truth of God for a lie, and served
> the creature rather than the Creator. Or else, living and dying in this
> world without God, they are exposed to ultimate despair.
>
> "845 To reunite all his children, scattered and led astray by sin, the
> Father willed to call the whole of humanity together into his Son's
> Church. The Church is the place where humanity must rediscover its unity
> and salvation. The Church is "the world reconciled." She is that bark
> which "in the full sail of the Lord's cross, by the breath of the Holy
> Spirit, navigates safely in this world."
> According to another image dear
> to the Church Fathers, she is prefigured by Noah's ark, which alone
> saves from the flood.
interesting - I've not heard this before.
>
> "'Outside the Church there is no salvation'"
>
> "846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
> Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
> comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
>
> "Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the
> Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one
> Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in
> his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the
> necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time
> the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a
> door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
> Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse
> either to enter it or to remain in it.
>
> "847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
> their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
>
> "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
> Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
> heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
> know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve
> eternal salvation."
everyone his heard of Christ now......so this no longer applies.
>
> [Note: In other words, "righteous" Jews and Muslims, who acknowlege and
> seek the God of Abraham, are, with those in the fullness of the Catholic
> Church, assured of God's salvation through the universal salvific work
> of Jesus.]
>
nope. they have heard the "Word" of the NT and reject it. The above
applies only the the bushmen in the dark of Africa who hasnever heard of
"jesus" or Christianity, and yet does good works.
gaffo
> Christianity while worshiping the three Persons of the Trinity does not
> worship three Gods.
they ususly worship one God - Jesus -a nd ignore the 2/3's of the rest
of him.
sometimes the Hopy Ghost gets a wink nd a prayer, but poor Yahweh is
ignored all the time............he seems to be a fading deity in the
minds of the Christians I've known.
gaffo
>>What a load of shit.
>> Christian is the one who profess Jesus as the promised Christ
>> and follow his way.
>> Does Islam confess Jesus as the Messiah?
>> I believe so
>
>
> To my knowledge, you are in grave error. Islam rejects utterly the idea that Jesus is the
> savior and the idea that one is saved only by the grace of God through faith in Christ. If
> I am mistaken, I would be grateful if someone more learned in Islamic theology would speak
> up.
I have read the Koran many yrs ago and I work with several Religious
Arabs. i do know a little about the theology (I'm an american non Muslim).
Jesus is equal to Abraham, and Moses. He is not equal to Mohammed,
though he is a close second (alone with the Abraham/Moses).
Jesus was a Prophet, and to be honoured - but NOT worhshipped. in fact
it is forbidden to worship Mohammed since he was only a man and not a
God. Such worship is heresy to Muslims, though I've seen something very
close to worship by a few Muslims (kinda like Catholics and thier Mary).
Muslims DO BELEIVE in the second comming of christ at the end times. He
and allthe other prophets including Mohammed are to appear just before
Armegedden and will save those who are rightious on behalf of Allah.
ALSO: the Koran does not have an exclusion clause, so anything claiming
to be devinely inspired and written after the Koran is not denied this
possibility. God has and continues to speak to many un-named Prophets in
lands all over the world. the koran is clear on these issues.
Mohammed was only one for the Arabic peoples (there is at least one
other mentioned by name for the Arabs (he was a contenporary)but forget
it), there were and are other anonymous prophets for the chinese,
europeans, africans........etc.........
in fact Mani could be defined as a prophet under the Koran. the kroan is
less strict in matters of dogma and doctrine than Fundamentalist
Chrsitianity.
Not-easily-duped
Mohammad is in line with Deut 18:15
which states: Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
He is also in line with the council of Jerusalem
God through Mohammad -a prophet like Moses-
has silenced the jews who objected to Jesus as not being
the Messiah because not really like Moses.
The advent of Mohammad has confirmed that Jesus was really
the Messiah.
This may mean nothing to gentiles like you but to jews it
means a lot as they can no longer get around the evidence
that Moses' messianic prophecy was fulfilled to its spirit
and its letter.
They are waiting in vain
>
> BAM
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
> Gregory Gadow wrote:
>
>
> >>What a load of shit.
> >> Christian is the one who profess Jesus as the promised Christ
> >> and follow his way.
> >> Does Islam confess Jesus as the Messiah?
> >> I believe so
> >
> >
> > To my knowledge, you are in grave error. Islam rejects utterly the idea
> > that Jesus is the
> > savior and the idea that one is saved only by the grace of God through
> > faith in Christ. If
> > I am mistaken, I would be grateful if someone more learned in Islamic
> > theology would speak
> > up.
>
The idea of vicarious salvation throught the bloody sacrifice on the
altar of the cross is rejected by Muslims. However, that has nothing to
do with the concept of Messiah, the Christ or anointed one (i.e. a great
prophet) promised to the Jews by God. Muslims do in fact consider Jesus
(peace be on him) to be the promised Messiah. The Qur'an says:
"The Messiah Jesus Son of Mary was God's messenger and His Word which he
bestowed on Mary and a Spririt from Him." (4:171)
>
> I have read the Koran many yrs ago and I work with several Religious
> Arabs. i do know a little about the theology (I'm an american non Muslim).
>
>
> Jesus is equal to Abraham, and Moses. He is not equal to Mohammed,
> though he is a close second (alone with the Abraham/Moses).
For Muslims this is a blasphemous statement. In the Qur'an, God tells us
that all his prophets are on an equal footing and that we are not to
make distinctions between them. The only distinction to be made is that
Muhammad (peace be on him), who came after Jesus (peace be on him), is
the last messenger (the "Seal of the Prophets"); no new messenger will
come after him. However Muslims believe that Jesus will come again in
the last days to prepare the world for God's judgement.
>
> Jesus was a Prophet, and to be honoured - but NOT worhshipped. in fact
> it is forbidden to worship Mohammed since he was only a man and not a
> God. Such worship is heresy to Muslims, though I've seen something very
> close to worship by a few Muslims (kinda like Catholics and thier Mary).
>
> Muslims DO BELEIVE in the second comming of christ at the end times. He
> and allthe other prophets including Mohammed are to appear just before
> Armegedden and will save those who are rightious on behalf of Allah.
I have never hear it said that all the prophets would return. Not even
Muhammad (peace be on him) will return. He is dead and buried. Only
Jesus (peace be on him) was raised up to God in glory to come again at
the end.
>
>
> ALSO: the Koran does not have an exclusion clause, so anything claiming
> to be devinely inspired and written after the Koran is not denied this
> possibility. God has and continues to speak to many un-named Prophets in
> lands all over the world. the koran is clear on these issues.
This is totally wrong. the Qur'an is the last revealved Book, given to
the last Messenger (Muhammad). There will be no later book or prophet.
>
> Mohammed was only one for the Arabic peoples (there is at least one
> other mentioned by name for the Arabs (he was a contenporary)but forget
> it), there were and are other anonymous prophets for the chinese,
> europeans, africans........etc.........
>
In the Qur'an, God himself, speaking in the plural of majesty (as he
does in the Book of Genesis) says:
"We (God) sent you (Muhammad) to be a mercy for all creatures." (21:107)
>
>
> in fact Mani could be defined as a prophet under the Koran. the kroan is
> less strict in matters of dogma and doctrine than Fundamentalist
> Chrsitianity.
>
Mani the father of manicheism could not be defined as a prophet. He
rejected the Torah of Moses, peace be on him (which Muslims must
believe in, along with the Gospel of Jesus, peace be on him). Mani also
claimed that the "real" Jesus was an "aeon" or persistant
personification of light in the world and that Jesus of Nazareth (peace
be on him) was "a devil who was justly punished for interfering in the
work of the Aeon Jesus". That of course is a outright denial of the
truth about Jesus as presented in the Qur'an.
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
> > "847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
> > their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
> >
> > "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
> > Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
> > heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
> > know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve
> > eternal salvation."
>
>
>
> everyone his heard of Christ now......so this no longer applies.
The Catechism does not say "heard of" but "know". There is a great
difference between being aware of something and knowing it. The
"knowing" that is referred to here is the sames as that referred to in
the blessing:
"The Peace of God, which passeth all understanding, keep your hearts and
minds in the knowledge and love of God, and of his Son Jesus Christ our
Lord...."
>
> >
> > [Note: In other words, "righteous" Jews and Muslims, who acknowlege and
> > seek the God of Abraham, are, with those in the fullness of the Catholic
> > Church, assured of God's salvation through the universal salvific work
> > of Jesus.]
> >
>
> nope. they have heard the "Word" of the NT and reject it. The above
> applies only the the bushmen in the dark of Africa who hasnever heard of
> "jesus" or Christianity, and yet does good works.
This is obviously not true. There are millions of Jews and Muslims who
were born into those religions, who have embraced the "faith of their
fathers" and who have heard of Jesus but who do not have any real
knowledge of him. Their ignorance of him or rejection of him based on
what they have received from their parents and teachers is not based on
sure knowledge and thus does not deprive them of salvation (as taught by
the RC Chruch).
bam
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote > Mohammad is in line
with Deut 18:15
> which states: Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
> He is also in line with the council of Jerusalem
>
> God through Mohammad -a prophet like Moses-
> has silenced the jews who objected to Jesus as not being
> the Messiah because not really like Moses.
> The advent of Mohammad has confirmed that Jesus was really
> the Messiah.
>
> This may mean nothing to gentiles like you but to jews it
> means a lot as they can no longer get around the evidence
> that Moses' messianic prophecy was fulfilled to its spirit
> and its letter.
> They are waiting in vain
I wish that just once I had the slightest idea what a Muslim was talking
about. And get a leader.
BAM
Not-easily-duped
> (Not-easily-duped) wrote:
>
> >Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> >to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
> Biggs of 62 West Wallaby Street has HIS Authority to define heresies
> and the opinion of anyone else is now redundant.
> So there!
>
> >The circumcised or any jew should keep the Law and costumes of Moses.
>
> >That is exactly what Islam did.
> >the popes
>
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA
I like that
> No one in alt.atheism
>
> Troll, troll, troll, your posts....
>
> Mark.
Not-easily-duped
> In article <3F95AE34...@serv.net>,
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
>
> > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
Of course under catholic dogmas it is heresy. but who give a damn
about your dogmas that you wrote up yourselves
>
> That is correct. And likewise the non-Roman Catholic Churches are
> considered by contemporary Roman Catholics to be heretical too, in that
> some of them reject the apostolic succession of bishops and others the
> real presence of Jesus under the accidents of bread and wine in the
> commnunion. In modern "politically correct language" the Roman Catholics
> often refer publicly to those groups as "our separated brethren".
> However, there is more than political correctness involved; there is
> also the very real theological distinction between "apostasy" and
> "heresy". Technically speaking, "apostasy" is the total and absolute
> rejection of faith. "Heresy" is to continue to believe but to distort,
> deny or misrepresent CERTAIN elements of orthodoxy.
>
> With the passage of time, in the RC Church the distinction between
> apostates and heretics was often blurred. Nevertheless, apostasy was
> considered to be far more serious than heresy, was at some times and
> places unforgivable even if the apostate recanted and inducement to
> apostasy was punishable by death.
>
> Put very simply, a Christian who becomes a Lutheran is a heretic. A
> Christian who becomes an atheist is an apostate.
>
> Today, the recognition that apostasy results in total exclusion from the
> community and heresy results only in partial exclusion is still
> important. It is the basis for the RC Church's declaration about Islam
> in the revised Cathechism that was published a few years ago (the first
> universal catechism since the Council of Trent, which ended in 1563 and
> had been convoked mainly to address the heresies of the Protestants.
>
> Today, the Catechism has this to say about Islam:
>
> "841 The Church's relationship with the Muslims. The plan of salvation
> also includes those who acknowledge the Creator, in the first place
> amongst whom are the Muslims; these profess to hold the faith of
> Abraham, and together with us they adore the one, merciful God,
> mankind's judge on the last day."
>
> Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
>
> That teaching was proclaimed during the Vatican II Council in the 1960s
> after the bishops present accepted it by a vote of 2,151 for and only 5
> against. That's as strong as the votes in early times that proclaimed
> the doctrines of Christ's divinity and the Trinity.
>
> That same Council also declared the following:
>
> "The Church regards with respect the Muslims, who worship the One,
> Living, Subsistent, Merciful, Almighty God who created the heavens and
> the earth, who spoke to men. They strive to submit wholeheartedly to
> God's commandments...even as Abraham submitted himself to God, whose
> obedience is often recalled in the Islamic religion. Although they do
> not recognize Jesus as God, they do venerate him as a prophet and they
> honour his virgin mother, Mary.... They await the Day of Judgment, when
> God will reward all those risen from the dead. They hold in high regard
> the moral life and worship God,particularly by prayer, charity and
> fasting."
>
> With the division of the Christian Church after the 4th Ecumenical
> Council (according to the Anglicans) or the 7th (according to others),
> there is no longer a single voice speaking for all Christian.
> Nevertheless, the declaration of the RC Church on Muslims is generally
> shared by most of today's Christian communities. Similar statements have
> been made by the United Methodists, Anglicans (Episcopalians),
> Presbyterians (PCUSA), Evangelical Lutherans, as well as by some Greek,
> Russian and Syriac Orthodox bishops.
>
> There are only a very small number of Christians, mainly those
> associated with the extreme right, fundamentalist, so-called
> conservative evangelical movement, that consider Muslims to be
> unbelievers and worshippers of a false god.
>
> Sadly for the peace and progress of the world, that fringe group now
> occupies positions of great power in the U.S. government. Some of its
> members, including some in government, think that the U.S. is God's
> chosen instrument for carrying out His divine will in the world. That
> megalomaniacal worldview combined with their way of defining persons and
> communities as good-evil, worthy-worthy, saved-damned in this world and
> the next, etc., has made them a great danger to all of us.
Not-easily-duped
> On Tue, 21 Oct 2003 15:07:48 -0700, Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net>
> wrote:
>
> >Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> >Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
> Christian, and therefore can't be considered "heretical." You might as
> well brand the Buddhists and all other religions as heretical
> Christians.
Ooooh, simply brilliant
Not-easily-duped
> Not-easily-duped wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F95AE34...@serv.net>...
> > > Not-easily-duped wrote:
> > >
> > > > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> > > > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
> > >
> > > Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
> >
> > I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
> > of the apostles?
>
> I'm not sure how to parse what you are asking. Are you asking by what authority does an
> ecumenical council speak for the Apostles?
Please be reminded that Islam has another definition
of the term apostle. You would do better to investigate it
before you come up with these kind of confused garbages.
Not-easily-duped
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) astounded us with:
> news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com:
>
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message
> > news:<3F95AE34...@serv.net>...
> >> Not-easily-duped wrote:
> >>
> >> > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> >> > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
> >>
> >> Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
> >
> >
> > I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
> > of the apostles?
>
> Are you able to translate this into "English"?
I depend on public libraries computers and sometimes it happens
that I am unable to run the spell check when I am running
out of time, sorry.
"I must stop you right here. What do you mean by 'a council has
the authority of the apostles'?"
Can this help?
Gregory Gadow
> In article <vpe53bf...@corp.supernews.com>,
> gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
>
> > Gregory Gadow wrote:
> >
> >
> > >>What a load of shit.
> > >> Christian is the one who profess Jesus as the promised Christ
> > >> and follow his way.
> > >> Does Islam confess Jesus as the Messiah?
> > >> I believe so
> > >
> > >
> > > To my knowledge, you are in grave error. Islam rejects utterly the idea
> > > that Jesus is the
> > > savior and the idea that one is saved only by the grace of God through
> > > faith in Christ. If
> > > I am mistaken, I would be grateful if someone more learned in Islamic
> > > theology would speak
> > > up.
> >
>
> The idea of vicarious salvation throught the bloody sacrifice on the
> altar of the cross is rejected by Muslims. However, that has nothing to
> do with the concept of Messiah, the Christ or anointed one (i.e. a great
> prophet) promised to the Jews by God. Muslims do in fact consider Jesus
> (peace be on him) to be the promised Messiah. The Qur'an says:
>
> "The Messiah Jesus Son of Mary was God's messenger and His Word which he
> bestowed on Mary and a Spririt from Him." (4:171)
The Quran says something along those lines... in Arabic. We run in to a major
problem when we start translating theological concepts out of its original
language and context.
The Hebrew word _MShYKh_ carries a sense of "great leader" (like Arabic, Hebrew
consists of consonant clusters carrying a general sense, with specific vowels
added to change specific meaning.) _MShYKh_ could be used for a noted king, a
great general or a religious prophet (the Psalms refer to King David as
_MShYKh_, as was the Babylonian King Darius.)
During the Seleucid occupation, from about 198 BCE to 165 BCE, _MShYKh_ came to
have a more eschatological meaning. The Seleucids strongly imposed Hellenistic
values and culture on the Jews, who were understandably less than pleased at
having their traditions considered less than civilized. In 175, King Antiochus
IV Epiphanes began a war of genocide against the Jewish people, dedicating the
Temple in Jerusalem to Zeus and ordering the daily sacrifice of pigs in the Holy
of Holies. Circumcision was made punishable by death, the observance of dietary
laws or Jewish prayer was made criminal and the spoken and written language of
the Jews was banned. The word _MShYKh_ came to mean "great one to come", a man
who would overthrow the Seleucids and restore Jewish religion and customs. Judas
Maccabee, whose revolt is commemorated every year in the festival of Hannukkah,
was given the title of _MShYKh_.
Early Christians, like every other eschatological movement in Roman occupied
Judea, called their founder _MShYKh_. With the development and Hellenization of
Christianity, the word was transliterated in to Greek to become Messiah and
given very specific theological meaning. Where _MShYKh_ meant any great leader
bringing political liberation and religious purification, Messiah was your
ticket to heavenly salvation and spiritual life.
I doubt very, very much that the Arabic of the Quran uses any word comparable to
Messiah. The word is probably the Arabic equivalent to _MShYKh_, with a similar
meaning.
Gregory Gadow
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message news:<kevans-E1E44C....@news.videotron.net>...
> > In article <3F95AE34...@serv.net>,
> > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> >
> > > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
>
> Of course under catholic dogmas it is heresy. but who give a damn
> about your dogmas that you wrote up yourselves
Please don't confuse me with a Christian. I am not.
Gregory Gadow
> Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F96B0D9...@serv.net>...
> > Not-easily-duped wrote:
> >
> > > Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote in message news:<3F95AE34...@serv.net>...
> > > > Not-easily-duped wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Only the Council of the apostles in the Acts has authority
> > > > > to define heresies not the roman catholic coucils.
> > > >
> > > > Christian tradition holds that the entire Church, in council, has the
> > >
> > > I must stop right here. What do you by a council has the Authority
> > > of the apostles?
> >
> > I'm not sure how to parse what you are asking. Are you asking by what authority does an
> > ecumenical council speak for the Apostles?
>
> Please be reminded that Islam has another definition
> of the term apostle. You would do better to investigate it
> before you come up with these kind of confused garbages.
I was not aware that Islam used the word 'apostle', which is of foundational importance to
Christianity. Your use of the word, however, appeared to be in the context of Christianity, which
is how I addressed your statements.
digimortal
gaffo
>
> This is obviously not true. There are millions of Jews and Muslims who
> were born into those religions, who have embraced the "faith of their
> fathers" and who have heard of Jesus but who do not have any real
> knowledge of him. Their ignorance of him or rejection of him based on
> what they have received from their parents and teachers is not based on
> sure knowledge and thus does not deprive them of salvation (as taught by
> the RC Chruch).
>
I've never heard this position from other Catholics. You have any
references?
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Gregory Gadow <tech...@serv.net> wrote:
> I doubt very, very much that the Arabic of the Quran uses any word
> comparable to Messiah. The word is probably the Arabic equivalent to
> _MShYKh_, with a similar meaning.
The word in the Qur'an is masiiH. The word Messiah is nothing more or
less than the word chosen by English Bible translators to render the
Hebrew word. French translators used Messie and the Jewish translators
of the scriptures into Greek used the Greek word Christos, which means
"anointed" and was in their mind the Greek equivalent of the Hebrew. In
the New Testament, the Greek word messias, the equivalent to the Hebrew
word is used (instead of Christos) in two places.
The origin for all of these words is the Hebrew word maashiiaH.
As you correctly point out, in certain periods of Jewish history the
word was, virtually, a synonymn for "king", in particular the
descendents of David. Muslims have never consider Jesus (peace be on
him) to be a king. In the Qur'an, only God is called "king". Therefore,
it is not possible for the Qur'anic word masiiH to mean king (concretely
or figuratively). It means exactly what the Hebrew maashiiaH means to
the Jews, the title of the long-expected anointed one.
Elroy Willis
> Muslims have never consider Jesus (peace be on him) to be a king.
For good reason. He was never king of anything.
How do most Muslims you know treat the crucifiction and resurrection
fable? What do most of them believe really happened?
--
Elroy Willis
EAP Chief Editor and Newshound
http://web2.airmail.net/~elo/news
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
Form the RC Church's official catechism:
"'Outside the Church there is no salvation'"
"846 How are we to understand this affirmation, often repeated by the
Church Fathers? Re-formulated positively, it means that all salvation
comes from Christ the Head through the Church which is his Body:
"Basing itself on Scripture and Tradition, the Council teaches that the
Church, a pilgrim now on earth, is necessary for salvation: the one
Christ is the mediator and the way of salvation; he is present to us in
his body which is the Church. He himself explicitly asserted the
necessity of faith and Baptism, and thereby affirmed at the same time
the necessity of the Church which men enter through Baptism as through a
door. Hence they could not be saved who, knowing that the Catholic
Church was founded as necessary by God through Christ, would refuse
either to enter it or to remain in it.
"847 This affirmation is not aimed at those who, through no fault of
their own, do not know Christ and his Church:
"Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve
eternal salvation."
Source: <http://www.vatican.va/archive/catechism/p123a9p3.htm#III>
As I have previously pointed out the expression "know the Gospel of
Christ or his Church" does not mean to merely know about them but to
have a genuine understanding of them.
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo
>
> "Those who, through no fault of their own, do not know the Gospel of
> Christ or his Church, but who nevertheless seek God with a sincere
> heart, and, moved by grace, try in their actions to do his will as they
> know it through the dictates of their conscience - those too may achieve
> eternal salvation."
interesting.................can the Church determine "through no fault
of their own". If not, how does one know if he or she is saved, if they
are not Christian?
gaffo
> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
>
>
>>Muslims have never consider Jesus (peace be on him) to be a king.
>
>
> For good reason. He was never king of anything.
>
> How do most Muslims you know treat the crucifiction and resurrection
> fable? What do most of them believe really happened?
>
AFAIK, they beleive in the Assumption of Jesus. i.e. he was taken up
before he was crucified. An imposter was placed on the cross and killed
in Jesus' place. This is what he Gnostics beleived also. Obviously
Mohammed knew some Gnostics living in Arabia around 600 AD (most likly
the Marsh Arabs - which I have read still have some Gnostic traits in
their religion (not sure what that religion is - Islam or christian?).
here is a general overall theology:
Islamic doctrine emphasizes the oneness, uniqueness, transcendence, and
utter otherness of God. As such, God is different from anything that the
human senses can perceive or that the human mind can imagine. The God of
Islam encompasses all creation, but no mind can fully encompass or grasp
him. God, however, is manifest through his creation, and through
reflection humankind can easily discern the wisdom and power behind the
creation of the world. Because of God's oneness and his transcendence of
human experience and knowledge, Islamic law forbids representations of
God, the prophets, and among some Muslims, human beings in general. As a
result of this belief, Islamic art came to excel in a variety of
decorative patterns including leaf shapes later stylized as arabesques,
and Arabic script. In modern times the restrictions on creating images
of people have been considerably relaxed, but any attitude of worship
toward images and icons is strictly forbidden in Islam.
A. Islamic Monotheism
Before Islam, many Arabs believed in a supreme, all-powerful God
responsible for creation; however, they also believed in lesser gods.
With the coming of Islam, the Arab concept of God was purged of elements
of polytheism and turned into a qualitatively different concept of
uncompromising belief in one God, or monotheism.
The status of the Arabs before Islam is considered to be one of
ignorance of God, or jahiliyya, and Islamic sources insist that Islam
brought about a complete break from Arab concepts of God and a radical
transformation in Arab belief about God.
Islamic doctrine maintains that Islam's monotheism continues that of
Judaism and Christianity. However, the Qur'an and Islamic traditions
stress the distinctions between Islam and later forms of the two other
monotheistic religions. According to Islamic belief, both Moses and
Jesus, like others before them, were prophets commissioned by God to
preach the essential and eternal message of Islam. The legal codes
introduced by these two prophets, the Ten Commandments and the Christian
Gospels, took different forms than the Qur'an, but according to Islamic
understanding, at the level of doctrine they are the same teaching. The
recipients of scriptures are called the people of the book or the
"scriptured" people. Like the Jews and the Christians before them, the
Muslims became scriptured when God revealed his word to them through a
prophet: God revealed the Qur'an to the prophet Muhammad, commanding him
to preach it to his people and later to all humanity.
Although Muslims believe that the original messages of Judaism and
Christianity were given by God, they also believe that Jews and
Christians eventually distorted them. The self-perceived mission of
Islam, therefore, has been to restore what Muslims believe is the
original monotheistic teaching and to supplant the older legal codes of
the Hebrew and Christian traditions with a newer Islamic code of law
that corresponds to the evolving conditions of human societies. Thus,
for example, Islamic traditions maintain that Jesus was a prophet whose
revealed book was the Christian New Testament, and that later Christians
distorted the original scripture and inserted into it the claim that
Jesus was the son of God. Or to take another example, Muslims maintain
that the strict laws communicated by Moses in the Hebrew Bible were
appropriate for their time. Later, however, Jesus introduced a code of
behavior that stressed spirituality rather than ritual and law.
According to Muslim belief, God sent Muhammad with the last and perfect
legal code that balances the spiritual teachings with the law, and thus
supplants the Jewish and Christian codes. According to the teachings of
Islam, the Islamic code, called Sharia, is the final code, one that will
continue to address the needs of humanity in its most developed stages,
for all time. The Qur'an mentions 28 pre-Islamic prophets and
messengers, and Islamic traditions maintain that God has sent tens of
thousands of prophets to various peoples since the beginning of
creation. Some of the Qur'anic prophets are familiar from the Hebrew
Bible, but others are not mentioned in the Bible and seem to be
prophetic figures from pre-Islamic Arabia.
For the Muslim then, Islamic history unfolds a divine scheme from the
beginning of creation to the end of time. Creation itself is the
realization of God's will in history. Humans are created to worship God,
and human history is punctuated with prophets who guarantee that the
world is never devoid of knowledge and proper worship of God. The
sending of prophets is itself understood within Islam as an act of
mercy. God, the creator and sustainer, never abandons his creations,
always providing human beings with the guidance they need for their
salvation in this world and a world to come after this one. God is just,
and his justice requires informing people, through prophets, of how to
act and what to believe before he holds them accountable for their
actions and beliefs. However, once people receive the teachings of
prophets and messengers, God's justice also means that he will punish
those who do wrong or do not believe and will reward those who do right
and do believe. Despite the primacy of justice as an essential attribute
of God, Muslims believe that God's most fundamental attribute is mercy.
B. Humanity's Relationship to God
According to Islamic belief, in addition to sending prophets, God
manifests his mercy in the dedication of all creation to the service of
humankind. Islamic traditions maintain that God brought the world into
being for the benefit of his creatures. His mercy toward humanity is
further manifested in the privileged status God gave to humans.
According to the Qur'an and later traditions, God appointed humankind as
his vice regents (caliphs) on earth, thus entrusting them with the grave
responsibility of fulfilling his scheme for creation.
The Islamic concept of a privileged position for humanity departs from
the early Jewish and Christian interpretations of the fall from Paradise
that underlie the Christian doctrine of original sin. In the biblical
account, Adam and Eve fall from Paradise as a result of disobeying God's
prohibition, and all of humanity is cast out of Paradise as punishment.
Christian theologians developed the doctrine that humankind is born with
this sin of their first parents still on their souls, based upon this
reading of the story. Christians believe that Jesus Christ came to
redeem humans from this original sin so that humankind can return to God
at the end of time. In contrast, the Qur'an maintains that after their
initial disobedience, Adam and Eve repented and were forgiven by God.
Consequently Muslims believe that the descent by Adam and Eve to earth
from Paradise was not a fall, but an honor bestowed on them by God. Adam
and his progeny were appointed as God's messengers and vice regents, and
were entrusted by God with the guardianship of the earth.
C. Angels
The nature of humankind's relationship to God can also be seen clearly
by comparing it with that of angels. According to Islamic tradition,
angels were created from light. An angel is an immortal being that
commits no sins and serves as a guardian, a recorder of deeds, and a
link between God and humanity. The angel Gabriel, for example,
communicated God's message to the prophet Muhammad. In contrast to
humans, angels are incapable of unbelief and, with the exception of
Satan, always obey God.
Despite these traits, Islamic doctrine holds that humans are superior to
angels. According to Islamic traditions, God entrusted humans and not
angels with the guardianship of the earth and commanded the angels to
prostrate themselves to Adam. Satan, together with the other angels,
questioned God's appointment of fallible humans to the honorable
position of viceregency. Being an ardent monotheist, Satan disobeyed God
and refused to prostrate himself before anyone but God. For this sin,
Satan was doomed to lead human beings astray until the end of the world.
According to the Qur'an, God informed the angels that he had endowed
humans with a knowledge angels could not acquire.
D. Islamic Theology
For centuries Muslim theologians have debated the subjects of justice
and mercy as well as God's other attributes. Initially, Islamic theology
developed in the context of controversial debates with Christians and
Jews. As their articulations of the basic doctrines of Islam became more
complex, Muslim theologians soon turned to debating different
interpretations of the Qur'an among themselves, developing the
foundations of Islamic theology.
Recurring debates among Islamic scholars over the nature of God have
continued to refine the Islamic concepts of God's otherness and Islamic
monotheism. For example, some theologians interpreted Qur'anic
attributions of traits such as hearing and seeing to God metaphorically
to avoid comparing God to created beings. Another controversial
theological debate focused on the question of free will and
predestination. One group of Muslim theologians maintained that because
God is just, he creates only good, and therefore only humans can create
evil. Otherwise, this group argued, God's punishment of humans would be
unjust because he himself created their evil deeds. This particular view
was rejected by other Muslim theologians on the grounds that it limits
the scope of God's creation, when the Qur'an clearly states that God is
the sole creator of everything that exists in the world.
Another controversial issue was the question of whether the Qur'an was
eternal or created in time. Theologians who were devoted to the concept
of God's oneness maintained that the Qur'an must have been created in
time, or else there would be something as eternal as God. This view was
rejected by others because the Qur'an, the ultimate authority in Islam,
states in many places and in unambiguous terms that it is the eternal
word of God.
Many other theological controversies occupied Muslim thinkers for the
first few centuries of Islam, but by the 10th century the views of
Islamic theologian al-Ashari and his followers, known as Asharites,
prevailed and were adopted by most Muslims. The way this school resolved
the question of free will was to argue that no human act could occur if
God does not will it, and that God's knowledge encompasses all that was,
is, or will be. This view also maintains that it is God's will to create
the power in humans to make free choices. God is therefore just to hold
humans accountable for their actions. The views of al-Ashari and his
school gradually became dominant in Sunni, or orthodox, Islam, and they
still prevail among most Muslims. The tendency of the Sunnis, however,
has been to tolerate and accommodate minor differences of opinion and to
emphasize the consensus of the community in matters of doctrine.
As is the case with any religious group, ordinary Muslims have not
always been concerned with detailed theological controversies. For
ordinary Muslims the central belief of Islam is in the oneness of God
and in his prophets and messengers, culminating in Muhammad. Thus
Muslims believe in the scriptures that God sent through these
messengers, particularly the truth and content of the Qur'an. Whatever
their specific religious practices, most Muslims believe in angels, the
Day of Judgment, heaven, paradise, and hell.
Elroy Willis
> Elroy Willis wrote:
>> Abdelkarim Benoit Evans <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in alt.atheism
>>> Muslims have never consider Jesus (peace be on him) to be a king.
>> For good reason. He was never king of anything.
>> How do most Muslims you know treat the crucifiction and resurrection
>> fable? What do most of them believe really happened?
> AFAIK, they beleive in the Assumption of Jesus. i.e. he was taken up
> before he was crucified. An imposter was placed on the cross and killed
> in Jesus' place. This is what he Gnostics beleived also. Obviously
> Mohammed knew some Gnostics living in Arabia around 600 AD (most likly
> the Marsh Arabs - which I have read still have some Gnostic traits in
> their religion (not sure what that religion is - Islam or christian?).
> here is a general overall theology:
<big snip>
Thanks for the info. Seems to me that Islamic doctrines are just as
screwy and unbelievable as the Jewish and Christian doctrines. I
don't know how anyone can manage to swallow any of them if they do
just a little honest and skeptical research.
<sigh>
Talking serpents, angels, demons, people ascending to heaven...
You gotta be kidding me, but I realize you're not. Oh well...
digimortal
"Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
news:kevans-585660....@news.videotron.net...
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
All people, Christians, Muslims, Jews and all others have only one
guarantee of salvation: God's love and mercy.
--
Abdelkarim Benoit Evans
Christopher A. Lee
Only in the imagination of their religious belief. To everybody else
it's something Christians (paticularly), Moslems (too often) and Jews
(occasionally) rub our faces in.
Elroy Willis
billu
> billu wrote:
>
> > "Abdelkarim Benoit Evans" <kev...@videotron.ca> wrote in message
> > news:kevans-EAF463....@news.videotron.net...
> > > In article <vpc0lke...@corp.supernews.com>,
> > > gaffo <ga...@usenet.net> wrote:
> > >
> > > > > Islam denies this doctrine and so, under
> > > > > Christian dogma, it is a heresy.
> > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > > Yes, both Judaism and Islam are technically consider to be heresies
and
> > > NOT apostasies.
> >
> > Judiaism is not a heresy since they are pre-christian.
>
> Christianity claims to be the "fulfilment" of Judaism. Jews since the
founding
> of the Christian religion have been accused of "rejecting" God's "obvious"
> revelation, of turning their back on God's plan as it has existed from the
very
> beginning. As such, Jews are not merely heretics, they are de facto
apostates,
> which is far worse. That is one of the principle reasons for almost two
> thousand years of Christian anti-Semitism.
>
>
I understand the position, I just don't believe it is accurate.
Christ Is Lord!
If governor Bush was a real Christian he'd want that
nice lady to live up in Heaven with Jesus instead of
passed out in a hospital bed getting raped by the
cleaning staff every night.
John Baker
"Christ Is Lord!" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:QvCdnb2xGZv...@comcast.com...
Please do not feed the troll.....
>
>
>
>
William Klee
<nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
Oh, I'm feeding it all right: a 100 cc oral dose of Plonkitrol.
stoney
Message ID: <241020032324187116%fno...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
right up its arse.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
William Klee
<sto...@the.net> wrote:
> On Fri, 24 Oct 2003 23:24:18 -0500, William Klee <fno...@yahoo.com>,
> Message ID: <241020032324187116%fno...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
>
> >In article <XEfmb.160212$xx4.28...@twister.neo.rr.com>, John Baker
> ><nu...@bizniz.net> wrote:
> >
> >> "Christ Is Lord!" <gymr...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
> >> news:QvCdnb2xGZv...@comcast.com...
> >> >
> >> > If governor Bush was a real Christian he'd want that
> >> > nice lady to live up in Heaven with Jesus instead of
> >> > passed out in a hospital bed getting raped by the
> >> > cleaning staff every night.
> >>
> >> Please do not feed the troll.....
> >
> >Oh, I'm feeding it all right: a 100 cc oral dose of Plonkitrol.
>
> right up its arse.
That's where trolls speak from, hence, oral.
stoney
Message ID: <261020030844054309%fno...@yahoo.com> wrote in alt.atheism;
Noted.
Trolls speaketh with sphincter tongue.
Not-easily-duped
> Ah, but they DENY His death and Resurrection!
Ah, but you have been laboring from wrong premises.
Yet we have been telling you not to mix up Theology and History.
As top-posting Sillymortal may know, History is a record
of an event, while Theology tries to understand the meaning
behind that event.
Where do you think Mohammad got the idea to preach the resurrection
of the dead If, as you shamelessly put it he did not
believe that his Messiah raised from the dead?
Perhaps, you expect him to rewrite the life of Jesus
but this not what the Qur'an is about.
Whereas Paul preached the Torah-free faith
to the uncircumcised and gentiles,
the qur'an on the other hand is explaining the same faith
to the circumcised and Torah observing believers thanx to
the COUNCIL OF JAMNIA, assuming that you know the effects
of that council on the synaguogue and the jewry at large.
Mohammad was a vehicle in the hand of Jesus among his people
like it or not, and that is the meaning of Deut. 18:15 as stated:
Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
Your missionary mind set prevent you see from seeing the big
picture as you look for some excuses for you to convert other
to not your faith but your culture.
digimortal
learner
> Where do you think Mohammad got the idea to preach the resurrection
> of the dead
Muhammad got his ideas from the Jewish residents of the Hijaz and from
his first wife's uncle Warraq bin Naufal, who was an Ebionite Bishop.
> If, as you shamelessly put it he did not
> believe that his Messiah raised from the dead?
Muhammad did not believe that Jesus died. Read Sura 4:158 before you
embarrass yourself further.
> Perhaps, you expect him to rewrite the life of Jesus
> but this not what the Qur'an is about.
Well, that is precisely what the Qur'an is about. In the Qur'an the
messages of all the prophets is exactly the same because Muhammad
makes them all sound the same. In the Bible, the prophets are
individual characters with distinct personalities and often have a
unique emphasis, or theme, in their messages. In the Qur'an, every
prophet says (basically) the same .... because it really is only
Muhammad's message and not a genuine record of the message of those
earlier prophets.
> Whereas Paul preached the Torah-free faith
> to the uncircumcised and gentiles,
> the qur'an on the other hand is explaining the same faith
> to the circumcised and Torah observing believers thanx to
> the COUNCIL OF JAMNIA, assuming that you know the effects
> of that council on the synaguogue and the jewry at large.
Paul and the Qur'an do not preach the same faith. Paul teaches
salvation through faith, the Qur'an teaches salvation through works.
> Mohammad was a vehicle in the hand of Jesus among his people
> like it or not, and that is the meaning of Deut. 18:15 as stated:
> Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
Muhammad was most certainly a vehicle, but not in the hands of Jesus.
The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
before you challenge others.
Learner
Not-easily-duped
> Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
>
Then explain the resurrection of the dead.
Not-easily-duped
> Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
You just don't know. You don't know what approach to take to decipher
the quranic message. YOU ARE CLUELESS
Gregory Gadow
Red herring. The heart of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus was crucified, suffered, died, was
resurrected and ascended bodily in to heaven. Islam was influenced by a heretical group of Gnostic
Christians, who taught that Jesus was NOT crucified, did NOT die and therefore was NEVER
resurrected. This heretical doctrine that it was Judas who died on the cross -- died and was NOT
resurrected -- is what is found in the Quran. The general resurrection of the dead at the end of
time is irrelevant to the matter of Jesus dying and being resurrected.
learner
> "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
I must admit, I am confused as well. The Qur'an is a confusing bundle
of contradictions which reflect Muhammad's predicament at a point in
time and the situational ethics that he used at that moment to get his
way.
In terms of the fate of Jesus, Sura 3:144 states that all messengers
died before Muhammad, yet Sura 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to
God alive after nearly being killed on the cross. But Sura 5:110
contradicts both of these passages claiming that Jesus taught the
people in (up to his) old age.
Learner
Not-easily-duped
> Not-easily-duped wrote:
>
> > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >
> > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> > >
> >
> > Then explain the resurrection of the dead.
>
> Red herring. The heart of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus was crucified, suffered, died, was
> resurrected and ascended bodily in to heaven. Islam was influenced by a heretical group of Gnostic
> Christians, who taught that Jesus was NOT crucified, did NOT die and therefore was NEVER
> resurrected. This heretical doctrine that it was Judas who died on the cross -- died and was NOT
Where in the Qur'an do you find the name Juda?
> resurrected -- is what is found in the Quran. The general resurrection of the dead at the end of
> time is irrelevant to the matter of Jesus dying and being resurrected.
Because it is hard for you to understand that the general resurrection
of the dead at the end of time is connected to Jesus resurrection as
spelled out in the NICEA CREED.
You are theologically poor, for this reason anybody can tell you anything
and you are likely to swallow it
Gregory Gadow
The Christianity that Mohammad knew was not orthodox Christianity, but a gnostic group considered heretical in its day. (I
don't recall the name, but they were the dominant form of Christianity in and around Mecca and Medina at the time.) They
taught that, before being led out to die, Judas replaced Jesus in an act of contrition for his betrayal. It was Judas, not
Jesus, who was executed. The majority of his followers had scattered on his arrest; Jesus gathered up the few that had
remained loyal and gave these proven disciples a body of "secret knowledge" which formed the basis of the gnostic
teachings. After several years in hiding, Jesus shed his mortal body for a purely spiritual one (which, by their teachings,
meant it was completely free of all material corruption) and ascended "bodily" in to Heaven.
Because this was likely the only form of Christianity known to Mohammad, this is the form of Christianity found in the
Quran. In short, the Quran is in accord with this Christian heresy.
Not-easily-duped
>
> > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >
> > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> > >
> >
> > Then explain the resurrection of the dead.
>
> Red herring. The heart of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus was crucified, suffered, died, was
> resurrected and ascended bodily in to heaven. Islam was influenced by a heretical group of Gnostic
> Christians, who taught that Jesus was NOT crucified, did NOT die and therefore was NEVER
> resurrected. This heretical doctrine that it was Judas who died on the cross -- died and was NOT
Islam made a point, you missed it. IF YOU ONLY understand the debate
in the epistle to the Galatians, you would know what theological line
the writer of the Qur'an is taking. But since you don't, it is
small wonder you talk about gnostic or heretic.
Y'A KNOW NOTHING BUT JUNKS
Not-easily-duped
>
> > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> >
> > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> > >
> >
> > Then explain the resurrection of the dead.
>
> Red herring. The heart of mainstream Christianity is that Jesus was crucified, suffered, died, was
> resurrected and ascended bodily in to heaven. Islam was influenced by a heretical group of Gnostic
> Christians, who taught that Jesus was NOT crucified, did NOT die and therefore was NEVER
> resurrected. This heretical doctrine that it was Judas who died on the cross -- died and was NOT
> resurrected -- is what is found in the Quran.
...I do not frustrate the grace of God, for if righteousness COME by
by the LAW/TORAH then CHRIST is dead in vain. Paul the Apostle
to the Galatians 2:21
We are assuming here that after the council of Jerusalem in Actes 15
- Let us pretend that you know the reason why the Council was held-
assuming that you still held the view that
the gentiles should be circumcised
and be told to keep the Law/Torah and costumes of Moses.
What would you answer to someone who holds the view as Paul did above
that the death of Christ is the death of the Torah?
THE QUR'AN MADE A VERY GOOD POINT BUT SINCE Y'A KNOW NOTHING BUT
JUNK, Y'A MIX UP EVERYTHING WITH HERESY OR GNOSTIC.
It is a shame that folks like you don't even know what is
going on in the Bible.
Not-easily-duped
Just junk
>
> Learner
Not-easily-duped
>
> > Where do you think Mohammad got the idea to preach the resurrection
> > of the dead
>
> Muhammad got his ideas from the Jewish residents of the Hijaz and from
> his first wife's uncle Warraq bin Naufal, who was an Ebionite Bishop.
Junk. Nothing original
>
> > If, as you shamelessly put it he did not
> > believe that his Messiah raised from the dead?
>
> Muhammad did not believe that Jesus died. Read Sura 4:158 before you
> embarrass yourself further.
JUST. NOTHING ORIGINAL
>
> > Perhaps, you expect him to rewrite the life of Jesus
> > but this not what the Qur'an is about.
>
> Well, that is precisely what the Qur'an is about. In the Qur'an the
> messages of all the prophets is exactly the same because Muhammad
> makes them all sound the same. In the Bible, the prophets are
> individual characters with distinct personalities and often have a
> unique emphasis, or theme, in their messages. In the Qur'an, every
> prophet says (basically) the same .... because it really is only
> Muhammad's message and not a genuine record of the message of those
> earlier prophets.
Same junk. no insight at all
>
> > Whereas Paul preached the Torah-free faith
> > to the uncircumcised and gentiles,
> > the qur'an on the other hand is explaining the same faith
> > to the circumcised and Torah observing believers thanx to
> > the COUNCIL OF JAMNIA, assuming that you know the effects
> > of that council on the synaguogue and the jewry at large.
>
> Paul and the Qur'an do not preach the same faith. Paul teaches
> salvation through faith, the Qur'an teaches salvation through works.
False dichotomy!
Did you mean that Paul taught salvation through grace and that
THE QUR'AN TEACHES salvation through work as James also taught?
>
> > Mohammad was a vehicle in the hand of Jesus among his people
> > like it or not, and that is the meaning of Deut. 18:15 as stated:
> > Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
>
> Muhammad was most certainly a vehicle, but not in the hands of Jesus.
> The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
> call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
> before you challenge others.
What load of shit! What ignorance. What a mind set!
>
> Learner
Not-easily-duped
> The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
> call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
> before you challenge others.
It is a metaphor, fool.
>
> Learner
John Hattan
Why is this horseshit being posted to alt.atheism?
---
John Hattan Grand High UberPope - First Church of Shatnerology
jo...@thecodezone.com http://www.shatnerology.com
Not-easily-duped
>
> > Messiah is a prophet like Moses.
>
> Muhammad was most certainly a vehicle, but not in the hands of Jesus.
> The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
> call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
> before you challenge others.
It is a dissimulation, fool
>
> Learner
Gregory Gadow
> Codeb...@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:
>
> >nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.03102...@posting.google.com>...
> >
> >> Muhammad was most certainly a vehicle, but not in the hands of Jesus.
> >> The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
> >> call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
> >> before you challenge others.
> >
> > It is a metaphor, fool.
>
> Why is this horseshit being posted to alt.atheism?
Because he is desperate for attention and hopes to "convert" people he considers hopelessly uneducated about
his religion. The problem is, those of us responding to him seem to be far more educated than he is. Notice
that in his last few posts, he's had to resort to ad hominem attacks because his own assertions have been
repeatedly proven wrong? Typical theist, and even more ignorant than usual.
Not-easily-duped
>
> > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
> > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> >
> > You just don't know. You don't know what approach to take to decipher
> > the quranic message. YOU ARE CLUELESS
>
> I must admit, I am confused as well. The Qur'an is a confusing bundle
> of contradictions which reflect Muhammad's predicament at a point in
> time and the situational ethics that he used at that moment to get his
> way.
It is called allegory, fool
Not-easily-duped
>
> > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
> > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> >
> > You just don't know. You don't know what approach to take to decipher
> > the quranic message. YOU ARE CLUELESS
>
> I must admit, I am confused as well. The Qur'an is a confusing bundle
> of contradictions which reflect Muhammad's predicament at a point in
> time and the situational ethics that he used at that moment to get his
> way.
It is called allegory, fool.
Let us say for exemple that, If the Arabian ruling class had accepted
the Gospel of Jesus on their own
- not to confuse with the life of Jesus-
we will not be discussing Mohammad and the Qur'an today.
As it is said, "necessité est mère de l'invention".
This is why I said earlier that it was a dissimulation.
You just got trapped in a sort of academic muddle. SAD
digimortal
digimortal
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
digimortal
himself LOL!!!
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
digimortal
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote
> Just junk
digimortal
"John Hattan" <jo...@thecodezone.com> wrote in message
news:bditpvg9ii359d2u8...@4ax.com...
Jos Flachs
(Not-easily-duped) wrote:
Please do. You believe in it. It is your superstition.
stoney
Message ID: <bditpvg9ii359d2u8...@4ax.com> wrote in
alt.atheism;
>Codeb...@bigsecret.com (Not-easily-duped) wrote:
>
>>nat...@hotmail.com (learner) wrote in message news:<c53bb03c.03102...@posting.google.com>...
>>
>>> Muhammad was most certainly a vehicle, but not in the hands of Jesus.
>>> The Messiah, by the way, is Jesus not Muhammad. No Muslim would ever
>>> call Muhammad the Messiah! Please learn something about your faith
>>> before you challenge others.
>>
>> It is a metaphor, fool.
>
>Why is this horseshit being posted to alt.atheism?
Because it was shat by the duped horse's ass.
Stoney
"Designated Rascal and Rapscallion
and
SCAMPERMEISTER!"
When in doubt, SCAMPER about!
When things are fair, SCAMPER everywhere!
When things are rough, can't SCAMPER enough!
/end humour alert
alt.atheism military veteran #11
{so much for the 'no atheists in foxholes' rubbish}
Not-easily-duped
> Either you don't understand Islamic teaching, Christian teaching or both...
Your assumption are wrong. We are here to correct them
Islam may be opposed to Catholicism but it is still a Christian teaching
like it or not. When the word Christian was first coined it referred
to anybody who believed that Jesus was the Christ/Messiah.
It was until later it became more technical as Jesus was preached
to the Greeco-Romans as Son Of God.
If you understood why the Council of Jerusalem, you would be able
to understand the Council of Jamnia and would not be blaming Islam.
You are blind to the big picture SILLYMORTAL because you don't read History
critically.
It is not about how you see it. IT IS ABOUT HOW GOD SEES IT
AND GOD JESUS HAS ALREADY SAID THAT EVERYTHING WAS IN DEUT 18:15
WHICH reads: MESSIAH IS A PROPHET LIKE MOSES and MOHAMMAD is
like the Arabian Moses. It is called Metaphor fool
digimortal
ROSE from the dead...PERIOD. Islam does NOT teach this. The Church at
Jerusalem believed this.
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03102...@posting.google.com...
billu
"nodaz" <no...@usa.com> wrote in message
news:23490492.03102...@posting.google.com...
> believe that the confusion was caused by the many writers of the
> Qur'ans and they were burned after his death.
>
> With regard to wine and/or drinking, originally he declared "Don't
> approach prayer while you are drunk" then he changed his mind in and
> made drinking forbidden at all times.
>
> When it comes to bits about Jesus, Raahib Al-Bouhiera (the Monk of the
> Lake) who belonged to an unorthodox Christian Arian sect is
> responsible for having taught Muhammad about Christianity and thence
> introduced confusion to Islamic view of Jesus. The Monk believed that
> Jesus was never crucified and the same is re-stated in the Qur'an.
Actually he prohibited fermented wine and seeds basically beer and wine
and by extraction anything distilled from them. Mead (fermented honey) is
AOK. And yummy too.
Not-easily-duped
> To follow Christ and call yourself a Christian is to believe he DIED and
> ROSE from the dead...PERIOD. Islam does NOT teach this. The Church at
> Jerusalem believed this.
Everything is packaged in the term Messiah and His prerogatives.
"Thus it is written and thus it behoved Messiah to suffer,and to
rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name among all nations." Luke 24:46-47.
Your Silly mind can not make a diference between Theological fact
and Historical one. Sad
All things considered the NICEA CREED is superfluous.
Not-easily-duped
> "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnpi8m$r4i$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
> > To follow Christ and call yourself a Christian is to believe he DIED and
> > ROSE from the dead...PERIOD. Islam does NOT teach this. The Church at
> > Jerusalem believed this.
"Thus it is written and thus it behoved Messiah to suffer,and to
rise from the dead the third day:
And that repentance and remission of sins should be preached in
his name among all nations." Luke 24:46-47.
WHEN YOU CONFESS THAT JESUS IS THE MESSIAH YOU ARE IMPLYING
THAT HE DIED AND ROSE FROM THE DEAD.Y'a know nothing but junk
and arguing over filioque or consubstantiality.
Sufis called your state of mind ignorance.
digimortal
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.03103...@posting.google.com...
digimortal
"Not-easily-duped" <Codeb...@bigsecret.com> wrote in message
news:bbba7302.0310...@posting.google.com...
Not-easily-duped
> Islam proves you wrong...
How??????????????? If you really understand what you are talking about.
If Jesus did not died and rose again, ain't nobody will be preaching Him
as the Messiah and we won't be sitting here talking about Him.
Islam confirms to everybody and specially to the pigs jews that Jesus
is the promised Messiah, yet you Nazareans complain that Islam denied
His death. What is this if not ignorance and false scholarship.
JESUS THE MESSIAH IMPLIES THAT THE PERSON WHO IS BEING TALKED ABOUT
AS THE MESSIAH DIED AND ROSE AGAIN according to the
prophecies of old prophets. Y'a learned nothing but junks no small
wonder why sufis laughed on your back.
Not-easily-duped
> You have not even addressed the issue as usual..
What issue? What issue top posting SILLYMORTAL is talking about?
Not-easily-duped
> >
> > > "digimortal" <digim...@starpower.net> wrote in message news:<bnk9kg$fj0$1...@bob.news.rcn.net>...
>
> > > > Well I guess you got duped! Islam does NOT teach that Jesus dies and rose...
> > >
> > > You just don't know. You don't know what approach to take to decipher
> > > the quranic message. YOU ARE CLUELESS
> >
> > I must admit, I am confused as well. The Qur'an is a confusing bundle
> > of contradictions which reflect Muhammad's predicament at a point in
> > time and the situational ethics that he used at that moment to get his
> > way.
> >
> > In terms of the fate of Jesus, Sura 3:144 states that all messengers
> > died before Muhammad, yet Sura 4:158 claims that Jesus was raised to
> > God alive after nearly being killed on the cross. But Sura 5:110
> > contradicts both of these passages claiming that Jesus taught the
> > people in (up to his) old age.
>
> Muhammad changed his mind several times on issues and many scholar
> believe that the confusion was caused by the many writers of the
> Qur'ans and they were burned after his death.
>
> With regard to wine and/or drinking, originally he declared "Don't
> approach prayer while you are drunk" then he changed his mind in and
> made drinking forbidden at all times.
>
> When it comes to bits about Jesus, Raahib Al-Bouhiera (the Monk of the
> Lake) who belonged to an unorthodox Christian Arian sect is
> responsible for having taught Muhammad about Christianity and thence
> introduced confusion to Islamic view of Jesus. The Monk believed that
> Jesus was never crucified and the same is re-stated in the Qur'an.
Another hearsayer